If Microsoft was Open Source, would it have LESS bugs?
- Thread starter andanton
- Start date
No!
Microsoft is a company.
if you are refering to one of their products say windows (or office)
It has the holes because of it's size, and so many million lines of code that no one person can ever read or check them all.
in fact it takes a group of 20+ upper level mangers each with a group of 20+ lower level manager just to assemble a 'snapshot' of it's current status.
so many features and so complex are the interactions between various parts of the code, some holes are inevitable.
To believe open source is inherently safer, is a pipe dream.
So far it is just less exploited
Microsoft is a company.
if you are refering to one of their products say windows (or office)
It has the holes because of it's size, and so many million lines of code that no one person can ever read or check them all.
in fact it takes a group of 20+ upper level mangers each with a group of 20+ lower level manager just to assemble a 'snapshot' of it's current status.
so many features and so complex are the interactions between various parts of the code, some holes are inevitable.
To believe open source is inherently safer, is a pipe dream.
So far it is just less exploited
I agree. The only reason I believe Windows to be so 'unsecure' is because it accounts for like 85% of the market. There are bugs and exploits for Apple and Linux also, but they are just not found as fast. People who search for exploits are automatically going to work with the dominent system.
I disagree with the last two posters.
Open Source would result in hundreds of thousands of people who could check the code. Therefore it would be definitely more secure. In your own words, you say that "no one person can ever read or check" all the source code. Open source would be more secure because you have more eyes checking the code, and the more eyes you have on it, the more secure it is.
T-Shirt said:
Open Source would result in hundreds of thousands of people who could check the code. Therefore it would be definitely more secure. In your own words, you say that "no one person can ever read or check" all the source code. Open source would be more secure because you have more eyes checking the code, and the more eyes you have on it, the more secure it is.
Jakal
Tech Monkey
I don't beleive many of you know how much time and effort go into the coding of Windows. Many aspects of the os are programmed by individual teams and then put together. One team doesn't know what the other team did or how it works exactly. These individual modules are then compiled together to form one piece.
I'll agree that an open source code would be more secure, but only because each version wouldn't be based on the same core structure. If you made a worm for one version it'd be less likely to work on a different one. Each version would process the code differently causing a different effect.
PC Magazine said:
I'll agree that an open source code would be more secure, but only because each version wouldn't be based on the same core structure. If you made a worm for one version it'd be less likely to work on a different one. Each version would process the code differently causing a different effect.
SqueekyClean
Obliviot
Jakal said:
The left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Sounds like a formula for disaster.
Even if Windows changed over to open source, I think it's a lost cause at this point. The only way to fix it would be a complete re-write. (Is Vista a complete re-write?) You need to have an entire team go through and document the entire code. You'd also need to have them review every function and how it's used. The main problem with adding security, is that you loose performance.
Also, releasing the entire source to the public would be mind boggling. If MS were to release the source, and I doubt they ever will, they'd need to start by releasing the basic building blocks of the kernel stating at the lowest level. As each level is reviewed for a certain amount of time, a new level would be released to the public so they could look for bugs.
Anyways, we all know MS won't do this any time in my lifetime.
Also, releasing the entire source to the public would be mind boggling. If MS were to release the source, and I doubt they ever will, they'd need to start by releasing the basic building blocks of the kernel stating at the lowest level. As each level is reviewed for a certain amount of time, a new level would be released to the public so they could look for bugs.
Anyways, we all know MS won't do this any time in my lifetime.
hundreds of thousands checking, maybe 10's of thousands adding code, then we go from 50 million lines to 75 or 100M?Worldstar said:
If you are convinced open source is the solution go with one of the *nix based open platforms.
If you gain enough users then you become the target.
To say MS should give away, 5 years of 9500+ programmers/developers/managers time, which builds on 30 years of work, as an experiment in open source is silly, not only would MS management never consider it, stockholders would revolt.
The problems I see with open source are
take linux, people believe it is free.......it is not, much of the work (billions of $$$$$worth) has been donated by individuals, who at some point will hope to make money on it, or at least give less freely of their time. with that we have seen many proprietary efforts to commerialize it, most have failed, a few (mostly server versions) remain.
The lack of someone (a chief architech, so to speak) in charge, providing a consitant direction and goal for the 'product'.
Who has finally say as to what features are included/removed?
It may work on some projects, but businesses, will not consider it a viable 'product' (and thus provide a revenue stream=nessesary for long term survival) if the code can change daily at the whim of some fluid, ever changing group. (the cost of an in house IT staff checking and certifing each new addon for ANY O/S is a large part of the current "outsource mania")
Yes, Windows has become overly large and complex (like a deluxe swiss army knife, what good does having a fork on one end, and the blade on the other do when you want to cut your steak?) with too many other functions integrated in.
Obviously some folks here have never read The Cathedral and the Bazaar.
living_joke
Obliviot
T-Shirt said:
Don't know about other people, but myself I won't use Linux because its not as well supported as Microsoft. I can go to the local computer store and buy one of thousands of computer games or other software. I couldn't do that with Linux. Despite the fact that I use Microsoft, I don't necessarily agree that closed source is more secure. Microsoft is less secure because its closed source. Open source would be more secure.
T-Shirt said:
Do you also believe in monarchy? Because the democratic system of goverment is a lot like open source, there is no chief architech, unless you count the president, but the president doesn't handle local government maintenance. Instead you end up with thousands and thousands of distributed managers across the government. The same applies to open source, you got dozens of people all managing parts of the development of open source. There is management but its a distributed form of management, very similiar to democratic government.
T-Shirt said:
There are thousands of companies who are using Linux operating systems. Linux is open source. Already proved your argument wrong, because there are so many thousands of companies already using open source as a viable product.
SqueekyClean
Obliviot
Long as Microsoft has an effective monopoly on the OS business, Linux will never be a mainstream business OS. It all boils down to how many applications are available to immediately buy and install for each OS.
SqueekyClean said:
This is not necessarily true. Microsoft is an expensive operating system. Linux will continue to gradually take over because it is free. Companies that have a lot of employees could be looking at millions of dollars just for the cost of equiping each computer with a Microsoft operating system. Linux can be installed as rapidly as Microsoft but at a much lower cost. I predict that Linux will gradually take over the industry and become the dominant operating system of choice.
Open source, and Linux for that matter, are what we in the states call "grass roots" movements. Meaning, they are started for the people, by the people. Windows is not by the people and its not for the people, its by Microsoft and for Microsoft. That means that they have their best intentions at hand, not ours. With Linux, the people's intentions are at hand. That means its free, will always be free, and will never cost anything. No upgrading fees or any of that type of stuff. Is Linux difficult for the average user to use? Yes, it may be. Give it some time. Come back with your advertising argument in 2015, when Microsoft is so wrapped up in itself, Windows won't only be expensive, but it will be buggy and cumbersome as well.
Last edited: